PZ Myers commented, while listening to Michael Behe lecture on Intelligent design, that "In science, we scream a lot."[1] Myers' emotionalism may have helped earn him the label of having an "eccentric voice" by the newspaperUSA Today.[2] In a 2014 lecture, Myers said he is known for being a "weird," "loud," "radicalized" and "firebrand" type of "New Atheist."[3]

Rebuke of PZ Myers by the atheist Michael Nugent relative to the area of social justice

The Irish atheist Michael Nugent wrote to PZ Myers in September of 2014:

“

Some of the content of your blog is hurtful and unjust in itself, it also undermines the effectiveness of attempts to promote compassion and empathy and social justice, and it is additionally harmful because of your prominence as a perceived spokesperson for organised atheism...

PZ, is this really how you want to be remembered? Having defended you against unjust attacks from others, I am now asking you to take a long hard look at what you are doing, consider apologising to people who you have unjustly hurt and defamed, and start focusing on actually promoting compassion and empathy and social justice if those ideas are important to you.[4]

”

Due to its notability requirements, the pro-evolution website Wikipedia (which was founded by an atheist and agnostic), does not make mention of any specific accomplishments PZ Myers may have achieved in the area of social justice. Wikipedia does mention the social justice accomplishments of Christians such as William Wilberforce, Harriet Beecher Stowe and others.

Inappropriate commentary on the suicide of comedian Robin Williams

In August of 2014, very shortly after the suicide of the popular, American comedian/actor Robin Williams, PZ Myers made a callous and socially/emotionally tone-deaf blog post on the matter compounded by him subsequently indicating in the blog post comment section that he should have been "more rude".[5]

Fellow atheist and evolutionist Jerry Coyne wrote in response to Myers' commentary on the suicide of Robin Williams:

“

This is one of the most contemptible and inhumane things I've ever seen posted by a well-known atheist. It reeks of arrogance, of condescension, and especially of a lack of empathy for those who loved and admired Williams not because they knew him, but because he brought them happiness and made them think.[6]

”

Myers was angry because he felt that the news of Robins Williams death was crowding out the news story of the African-American Michael Brown who was shot by a police officer (a race riot subsequently ensued).[7] Myers was criticized by one of the bloggers at Hemant Mehta's blog The Friendly Atheist due to his "his heartless, classless body blow to the still-warm corpse of Robin Williams."[8] In addition, Myers' hypocrisy was pointed out as he had made no blog posts previously about the Michael Brown matter and additionally Myers a day earlier, made "a substance-free 15-word post whose main attraction was a photo of a cute bulldog puppy."[9]

On September 27, 2014 in a blog post entitled The Atheist Disillusionment, PZ Myers declared:

“

I will make a prediction, right here and now.... The number of people identifying as atheists will stagnate or even shrink, because organized atheism is happily in the process of destroying itself with regressive social attitudes, scandals, and their bizarre focus on irrelevant metaphysical differences that don’t help people...

Atheist PZ Myers says atheists are largely a population of internet nerds and geeks

If we're going to expand our base and we're going to draw in more people to recognize the virtues of living in a secular world, we need to appeal to more than just that geek and nerd subset of the population. We need to have a wider base. ...I seriously believe that we're on the cusp of a crisis. We're not there yet but it's looming in front of us. Will we adapt and thrive and change the world? Or will we remain an avocation for a prosperous and largely irrelevant subset of the population? Will we become something more than a scattered society of internet nerds? That's what we have to do.[13]

”

In response, Evolution News and Views wrote:

“

A crisis looms, in Myers's view, because he looks around himself and sees a not very promising basis for a mass movement. He's right. There is indeed a quality of geeky isolation from reality, common sense, and the fullness of life that I see as a motif in atheist and Darwin activism alike.[14]

Thunderf00t on the impact of Freethoughtblogs on social justice

In October of 2014, the popular YouTube atheist Thunderf00t indicated that the bloggers at Freethoughtblogs accidentally put him on their email list and that they spend a considerable amount of time emailing each other engaging in petty matters. In fact, he indicated that they spent more time emailing each other than engaged in actual blogging. He also questioned the impact of the bloggers of Freethoughtblogs on social justice.[19] Furthermore, he indicated that their attempt to make him a pariah within the atheist community had virtually no impact.[20]

In addition, Thunderf00t commented on how Jen McCreight, the founder of the atheist feminist movement Atheism plus abandoned her movement within two weeks. And how Richard Carrier "the intellectual artillery" of the movement, quit promoting the movement within a month.[21]

PZ Myers and militant atheism

PZ Myers is a militant atheist who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.[22]
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

“

I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.[23]

”

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"[24] religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"[25] and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."[26] Myers has yet to offer scholarly work on the subject of atheism[27] (for example, PZ Myers has yet to offer scholarly works on the subjects of atheism and mass murder and atheism and uncharitableness). In addition, given Myers' diatribes that religious people are allegedly ignorant and deluded, it is quite ironic that Myers has yet to offer any compelling atheist apologetic material rebutting the studies that indicate the irreligious are generally more superstitious than evangelical Christians.

PZ Myers also dismissed Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design referring to it as a “stinker,” “drivel” and “Discovery Institute Bulldung” whilst stating that, “Stephen Meyer lies.” Yet, he stated all of this, and more, whilst stating, “I suppose I’ll have to read that 600 page pile of slop sometime…”....This fact alone shows that he needs to read it, as Intelligent Design proponents are constantly begging their opponents to stop mischaracterizing Intelligent Design theory as holding to something to the likes of it’s so complex, it must have been . . . designed!

PZ Myers also refused to debate anyone from Creation Ministries International (CMI) even while he was in Australia for the preaching-to-the-choir-back-patting Global Atheist Convention - The Rise of Atheism – the “biggest ever atheist event in Australia’s history”...

Clearly, PZ Myers is popular because he scratches where many atheists itch: atheism is an emotional rejection of God very, very thinly veneered in a facade of scientific and intellectual respectability. Thus, PZ Myers plays upon and stokes the fires of emotion yet, he has not, is not and who knows if he ever will engage the intellect.[27]

In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges).

Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12-14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia.

The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, PZ Myers, et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.[29]

PZ Myers refusal to debate Vox Day

I have heard from numerous atheists who find his intellectual cowardice to be more than a little troubling given his usual tendency to create conflict rather than to avoid it. And he has handed an out to every single individual he ever hopes to challenge in the future. Why should they debate a nobody like him, a clown who isn't even a bigshot in his own field?

As for the PZ Myers Memorial Debate, we are still in search of an atheist to champion the argument that the logic and evidence for the nonexistence of gods is stronger than the logic and evidence for the existence of gods. It is certainly informative to see how many atheists do not appear to believe they are able to effectively make this case; in light of this, many Christians may find this to be a useful tactical approach when confronted by aggressive atheists in the future. This tends to confirm my previous observations that while atheists like to challenge the beliefs of others, they are very ill-prepared, and in many cases downright unwilling, to defend their own. So, if you want to shut them up, simply go on the attack. They'll run away with alacrity.[31]

”

On August 28, 2011, Vox Day declared concerning Myers:

“

What you clearly do not understand is that, by his own admission, PZ relies heavily upon emotional arguments rather than logical ones when he cannot simply appeal to an established scientific consensus. "I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive." His tendency to rely upon emotional rhetoric and passion rather than reason is precisely why he is afraid to debate people who rely primarily upon logic, because his ability to present reason-based arguments is relatively low. His ability to utilize reason is simply not equal to the skill of others who make use of it more effectively. PZ is without question an effective preacher to the godless choir of science fetishists, but he is remarkably unskilled at presenting convincing arguments, let alone conclusive ones, to those who do not already agree with him. Unlike you, he knows he is not an effective evangelist.[32]

PZ Myers' commentary concerning atheist meetings

PZ Myers recently commented that atheist meetings tend to be significantly more attended by males.[35] Mr. Myers commentary concerning atheist meetings is not surprising given that survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Myers appeared in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."[36] Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the Mall of America[37] and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by Expelled's producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.[38][39] Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.

PZ Myers on abortion

PZ Myers is not only "pro-choice", but he said he is "even willing to say" that he is pro-abortion.[41]

The website Evolution News and Views wrote:

“

Myers again, on abortion:

'what's at stake is a mere embryo, so it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated, and I don't have any illusions about whether this is deciding the fate of a human life -- it's not. There's no person...'

Myers' ugly assertion -- 'it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated...[t]here's no person -- demonstrates the New Atheist moral vacuum. New Atheists insist that there is no objective moral law; morality is nothing more than an evolved adaptation, or what each of us decides, ad nauseam. Yet if there is no objective moral law that transcends the individual will to power, then power, not justice nor mercy nor even love for one's own child, governs human conduct. Atheist morality boils down to this: '... because we can'. That has been the moral code of atheism in power for a century.[41]

”

In 2011, Myers wrote that when he sees dead baby pictures: "I look at them unflinchingly and see meat."[42]

What a tragic figure, what a deprivation of all that is human and humane, what a sad, sick and depraved soul: what a by product of atheism.

Beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies who were brutally murdered in unimaginably brutal and inhuman, inhumane, and subhuman manners are to be likened to rats, mice, dogs, and misc amputated body parts. In his reductionist eyes it is all merely temporarily animated meat.[42]

In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.[43]

Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women

In 2014, PZ Myers said of New AtheistRichard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”[44]

Communion host incident

On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.[45][46] After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression [47]; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page. PZ Myers followed through with his threat, desecrating a eucharist and tearing out pages of a copy of the Koran and a copy of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.[48]

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses had been spoofed One was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers, though the husband of the user of the address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail.[49] The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message."[50] Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.[51][52]

PZ Myers' blog posts often lack substance

Just a few years ago PZ Myers fellow Sciencebloggers were complaining about his general lack of substance and about his cult of personality amen chorus of adherents whom were dubbed the screechy monkeys. PZ Myers should be thankful that Scienceblogs is not about science blogs and does not demand science on its Scienceblogs or else 99.9% of all posts on his pseudo-science blog would have to be deleted or, would have never been posted in the first place.

Now it is PZ Myers who is complaining about his fellow Sciencebloggers as he states that Scienceblogs has been facing a steady erosion of talent. The key question is What sort of talent? Talented at doing what?

If he references the talent to elucidate matters scientific then he is quite lacking himself.

If he refers to peppering virtually every post with ad hominems, mythunderstandings, promulgating of prejudice and positively affirming Gods non-existence without evidence then he is the pseudo-science blogger par excellence.[53]

”

PZ Myers on bestiality

PZ Myers said, "I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions...".[54] When asked what conditions were acceptable for bestially to be morally acceptable, Myers was silent. [54]

So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way.[54][55]

”

A Christian commented on Myers's statement:

“

If you are sensing that there is something amiss with a person stating he neither supports nor opposes bestiality, then you are more perceptive with regard to moral reasoning than PZ Myers is. Myers once stated his morality is based on feelings of empathy. In an interview he stated, "If I punched you in the face, you would feel bad and I would feel bad ..and that's where morality comes from." Ironically, Myers offers a cartoon that mocks plaintive logic, that is, logic based on feelings, which is exactly the same basis of morality Myers appealed to in his interview.

When I sent Myers an email asking him to clarify what "specific conditions" would make bestiality morally acceptable in his opinion, he declined to address my email and my second article on the subject. There is really only one likely scenario in which it seems Myers would accept bestiality, also known as zoophilia, and that is if it is apparent that the animal is not being harmed and if it is demonstrating some kind of approval, enjoyment or "consent" in the act. The problem for Myers here is quite simple. If nothing must be held sacred, then why should bestiality be considered acceptable only under certain conditions and not always? Why should animal rights be an issue if animal rights are not sacred? These are logical contradictions he needs to address. What is happening here is that Myers is revealing in his quote that he does in fact believe that some boundaries must be held sacred.[54]

”

Atheist animal trainer objects to PZ Myers' comments about bestiality

On May 22, 2012, PZ Myers specifies under what conditions he thinks the practice of bestiality would be acceptable.[56]

PZ Myers possesses numerous character flaws that make him ill-suited as an A/S/humanism spokesperson and representative: his explosive temper; his violence-tinged threats; his foul language; his preference for personal insults over reasoned debate; his propensity to smear and slander any & all who oppose him;..his willingness to abandon skepticism and science to serve the pomo constructs of radical feminism and social justice warriordom.

Of all these, nothing is more odious, repulsive, or damaging to the reputation of A/S & humanist activism, than Myers’ condoning of bestiality.[57]

PZ has several times written about and linked to pornography involving women and octopuses described as ‘hentai tentacle rape’. In one post, PZ wrote: “I know some people will be aghast at the exposed mammalian flesh and weird exploitation of women… but it’s got tentacles everywhere, and molluscs…” In another post, he wrote: “Although nothing beats a sea slug for that vulval feel, I’m afraid. Mmmm, Aplysia, if you weren’t so cold, I’d… ahem.”[58]

On January 2, 2008 Christian apologist Vox Day wrote in an article entitled Atheist Dad of the Year:

“

If I were ever to have attacked atheism by arguing that on the rare occasions when atheists manage to successfully reproduce, their children would likely grow up possessing beliefs that are utterly immoral by Western moral norms and abhorrent to the average individual, many people would howl that I was unfairly engaging in baseless conjecture, regardless of the logic presented.

So, it's more than a little amusing to see PZ Myers angrily defending his daughter's public argument against anti-bestiality laws. Now, it's certainly the girl's right to advocate on behalf of whatever legal cause she feels is important to her, but this particular choice of subject really doesn't provide the most convincing evidence against the oft-repeated charge that atheists are hopelessly immoral. And if there's nothing rationally objectionable about the practice, then from whence comes this defensive paternal outrage?

The ironic truth is that Miss Myers is absolutely correct; once the basic concept of Natural Law is abandoned, there is no rational basis for banning anything from necrophilia to cannibalism other than a vague sense of "ickiness" inherited from preceding generations possessed of a more conventional morality.[60]

”

Skatje Myers, the daughter of atheist PZ Myers, wrote:

“

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets...

That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.[61][62]

Skatje Myers on morality

On August 18, 2011, Skatje Myers wrote:

“

I’m a moral nihilist. I have no reason to believe that morality is anything other than preferences.

I have those preferences, of course — essentially it’s just intuitional leanings. Any need or desire to follow those leanings is purely for my own enjoyment. I decide what is right and wrong based on what I feel is right and wrong, and I follow them only because of a self-created obligation to myself. I demand that others follow the same “rules” I have for myself, because I want them to. It makes the world the way I want it to be.

The way I see it, every other system of morality is based on unjustifiable claims too, so why follow someone else’s invented ideas of right and wrong?[63]